It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

page: 2
74
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I guess we can look at it this way ...

thank you NASA for inventing Photoshop!


wZn




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I would only consider this evidence of some kind of loony moon conspiracy if you found the same things in many of the non-panoramic photos as well.

I'm way too lazy and too confident in the fact that we did go to the moon to sort through any photos myself (which, even if they supported my point would be overlooked by the folks that make some of the more outrageous claims around here), but I'm sure you can find standard shots of those same areas separately and compare discrepancies?

And Mike, I know your trying to be a little sensationalistic here for the sake of entertainment, but I also know your a smart guy and for sure probably cross referenced the pics and properly looked into realistic explanations before posting, right? I mean, even if you found out that it was a glitch that only affected the panoramic photos you could have made a very good post that you could use to still forward your agenda. It would show your followers that you don't just frivolously post something you haven't examined from all sides, making the things you do post carry that much more weight. And heck, you might even be able to get some fence sitters to pay more attention if you posted a topic title such as:

"Don't be FOOLED!! Not all NASA moon photo anomalies are unexplainable!!"

Sometimes I think you know this, other times I am not so sure. Maybe some days you like throwing gas on the fire, and some days you don't. But I have seen some stuff you post that really intrigues me, and I hate the fact that some other stuff you post detracts from the overall big picture. Its all about separating the signal from the noise. And there is way too much noise in this community (not just ATS, but the entire subject in general). Rather than adding to the noise, why don't you add to the signal? Yeah yeah, I know I just added to the noise by posting this..I know...I know....



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pjotr
But when you look better and see that a whole strip looks duplicated, I think i have to bet on the stitching form Spitefulgod

Well, I don't see the whole strip 'duplicated'! Can you point this out? There are only specific areas that are 'cloned'. If it was a software glitch then the entire image would have either a verticle or horizontal displacement resulting in every object being duplicated along the 'stitch'.

It's also likely as some have mentioned that specific areas may have been cloned using the clone tool. The dudes at NASA's imaging section need to be more careful, what? The cloning should have been from areas farther away! So what were they trying to hide using the clone tool?

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
The way I see it is that NASA found something there that they didn't want the rest of us seeing. And they covered it up. The rocks are the same one, over and over again. Only reason they would do that is if there was something important they didn't want us to see. One more lie in a sea of lies.




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Well, I don't see the whole strip 'duplicated'! Can you point this out? There are only specific areas that are 'cloned'. If it was a software glitch then the entire image would have either a verticle or horizontal displacement resulting in every object being duplicated along the 'stitch'.


True. And this is what is confusing.

When you stitch images together you would expect everything to either repeat (i.e. being lazy) or everything to be removed (i.e. put the effort in to line it up).

What is not expected is the a bit of both. As you can see from the image by hande - equipment and rock formations have been hand-removed and there is no direction of stitching that would allow this to be just a software glitch.



EDIT: check my post below explaining how wrong I was!

[edit on 22/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Ok here is one. Not almost same. Not same copy but you can see it same original:




posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


The first picture on the bottom left corner there is a rock with 2 shadows. Apparently there is 2 light sources on the moon. LOL



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Rather than adding to the noise, why don't you add to the signal? Yeah yeah, I know I just added to the noise by posting this..I know...I know....



OK, let's add to the signal some! Check out the two images below. Instead of seeing duplicates/clones, you'll wonder where the rock has DISAPPEARED? Oh yeah! That's because of the astronaut's displacement in the photographs. But look again. The location is almost the same, probably separated by a few meters.

But the rock is missing! Or the area is probably different but with the same backdrop! Hmmmm...



This image taken from a little further back...



So where'd the rock disappear? I thought only Houdini could pull it off. Now even NASA can!!


Cheers!


www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

[edit on 22-4-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Actually - I stand totally corrected.

If you check out the source images that are linked to underneath the main panoramic composites you will see that the duplications do not exist.

It is just the way that they have been stitched together - albeit in a rather lazy fashion clearly!

[edit on 22/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I was just going to add that this apparent stitch error isn't truthfully an error as not all of the stitch is repeated, it seems more like selective cloning with a spot of healing brush.

The mars image is also weird as almost the entire background has been replaced, no stitch error here folks. Also, even if automated would someone not have checked there images for clarity etc, how could they not see obvious duplication.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Today we have cheap digital cameras that automagically glue together a panoramic view, you just press the click button a few times while you slowly make a 180 degree turn. Mike Singh doesnt tell when these panoramic NASA pictures were assembled but back in the 60-70's such tech didnt exist, someone had to manually make the finished panorama look seamless. My guess is that the technique back then (if they were produced some time ago, even if not, the original shots perhaps didnt were enough to make a FULL panoramic view !) involved using some material from one shot onto the next so it would appear seamless.


However, achieving a seamless result is more complicated than just aligning photographs; it also involves correcting for perspective and lens distortion, identifying pixel-perfect matches between subject matter, and properly blending each photo at their seam.


www.cambridgeincolour.com...

NASA Pancam, Gigapan
science.nasa.gov...


Cheers, and yes i am a fan of Mr Singhs posts, they are good.

[edit on 2009/4/22 by reugen]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Rather than adding to the noise, why don't you add to the signal? Yeah yeah, I know I just added to the noise by posting this..I know...I know....



OK, let's add to the signal some! Check out the two images below. Instead of seeing duplicates/clones, you'll wonder where the rock has DISAPPEARED? Oh yeah! That's because of the astronaut's displacement in the photographs. But look again. The location is almost the same, probably separated by a few meters.

But the rock is missing! Or the area is probably different but with the same backdrop! Hmmmm...



This image taken from a little further back...



So where'd the rock disappear? I thought only Houdini could pull it off. Now even NASA can!!


Cheers!



Yes, very odd although I'm not sure of the apparent distance of the background, if it were very far then it's totally possible to move your pov left or right quite a distance without the background changing it's perspective?

What I do love about the NASA backgrounds, they are all silky smooth, no apparent boulders on them yet everywhere else seems littered?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I think that you are looking for stuff. If you look quickly, yeah they look similar. If you look close, they are different. They have different markings and different shaping on the edges. If people look for conspiracy, you can always find it.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
In other words it's not WISIWIG. It's WISIWIJDG!! In other words, What-I-See-I-Just-Don't-Get!!


Now with all that modern technology and million dollar cameras, and mind bogglingly sophisticated imaging processes, is this all what they've got to show? Crappily stitched images of the Moon?

It means that what we're seeing is mostly junk. Not the true terrain one would like to see. So that's how the tax payer's money is being spent - on images that suck! If they can't get even this process right, how did they manage to land men on the Moon? Jeeez!


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
In other words it's not WISIWIG. It's WISIWIJDG!! In other words, What-I-See-I-Just-Don't-Get!!


Now with all that modern technology and million dollar cameras, and mind bogglingly sophisticated imaging processes, is this all what they've got to show? Crappily stitched images of the Moon?

It means that what we're seeing is mostly junk. Not the true terrain one would like to see. So that's how the tax payer's money is being spent - on images that suck! If they can't get even this process right, how did they manage to land men on the Moon? Jeeez!


Cheers!


I am just guessing here, the original photos were taken on the moon by the Apollo mission but the panoramic views were made by NASA with state of the art technology (see link above post). Maybe the original photos were taken too far apart i.e they do not overlap ? Thats why they have to reuse some of the surface elements to make the panoramic view look seamless ?

For example in this panoramic view, looks weird if you follow the inserted red dot vertically up, the stitch cuts right thru some rocks.



[edit on 2009/4/22 by reugen]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
i work as lead webdesigner at a few companies now, and when i see these images initially, i started laughing. its so obvious they are clone tooled.

after figuring out that you had posted these screens from a panorama image... i was mad


now if these artifacts showed up in any one single image, then yes... scream insanity, but these are two photos put together at the edges. there are pretty decent programs that do this mostly successful. nothing beats an actual artist in creating them however.

just to give you an idea of what tools we use to do this.

Brush tool - different size brushes, as well as different shapes (can actually be anyshape i have some people shaped brushes and you can make anything airplane spaceship brick) in the hands of a true master, you could never tell because of our extensive color list.

Clone tool - this tool is awesome. in the hands of someone knowing what they are doing, you could duplicate any portion of an image any number of times. basically you set an anchor and where you start painting you can copy the anchors position to the new one. (which is what i thought i was seeing at first)

Dodge and Burn tools - dodge means make lighter, burn makes darker. after cloning a section, you would want to dodge and burn portions of the copied image to make it seem different. like its not the same image you copied from.

there are others like blur and healing brush color replacement, and after adjusting the light and saturation levels you could bring in any other image and make it look naturally there.

a good photoshop guy could knock all those out in a day or two, and do a certainly much better job than of the older pictures of the moon with what looks like towers on the moon. those are a joke if faked, and that guy should be fired for a terrible job (if it wasnt a glitch from camera equipment that is.... doubt that tho).



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


lol wysiwyg

what you see is what you get


i got your joke tho

oh by the way,

S&F!



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I've always said we have never been to the moon. Why would we go there in 1969 and never go back. I think every single picture from the so called "moonlanding" was taken right here on Earth on some sort of universal studio stage.

There are other photos as well. I believe there was one where it showed Earth in the background......not one star in the sky! Sure is alot of stars out in space for not one to show up in that photo. I've heard that they doctored the photo to show true beauty of Earth. If that is true, then where is the original photo?

What do these people think we are a bunch of mindless idiots?

Great find OP!

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Zeus2573]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Very odd that a huge boulder is missing on the photos above. But do you really believe the nonsense fed by bureaucratic agencies anymore?

It's like believing that Jesus (whatever his real name was) was born to a virgin mother.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by evo190
Very odd that a huge boulder is missing on the photos above. But do you really believe the nonsense fed by bureaucratic agencies anymore?

It's like believing that Jesus (whatever his real name was) was born to a virgin mother.


Well, the bible, maybe it is modern stuff described by humans 2000 years ago? Its like you trying to explain quantum theory today in a way someone in 2076 knows it. "Virgin mother" could mean artificial insemination.

[edit on 2009/4/22 by reugen]



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join